kohls_suggest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It goes beyond the obvious by stating there is no product data, clarifying the response shape, and warning that a nonsense query generates a genuine empty list rather than an error — which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as a failure. It omits details like limits on suggestion count, but for a small one-parameter tool the core behavioral contract is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output shape and an edge-case note; every sentence earns its place. A minor redundancy (the phrase 'search/search-box typeahead' appears in two places) keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description explains everything the agent needs: what input to supply, what the result contains, what it does not contain, and what happens on a degenerate input. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and correctly invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the query parameter is documented as 'Partial search text'. The prose description adds little beyond the same keyword, 'partial', and does not add constraints such as maximum length, encoding, or examples. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: returns Kohl's own search-box typeahead result for a partial query, and describes the output shape (flat list of suggested search phrases, no product data). It is self-distinguishing from kohls_category, kohls_product_reviews, and kohls_stores without needing to inspect any other definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: use it when you have a partial query and want typeahead suggestions, and the explicit 'no product data' constraint tells the agent when not to use it. However, no alternative sibling tool is named, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than an explicit pointer to a replacement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.